A House Committee throws support behind app store age verification. If passed, it would connect a minor’s app store account to their parent’s or legal guardian’s.

Proponents are framing it as a child protection bill, while opponents say it’s the state “playing parent” and likely sets the state up for a lawsuit.

The 13-page bill adds requirements for app store providers and app developers. Similar measures have failed in the past in the South Dakota Legislature. However, the House State Affairs Committee gave its stamp of approval on the legislation 8-3 Wednesday morning.

House Bill 1275 requires app store providers, like Apple and Google, to request age category information and then further verify that through “commercially available methods that are reasonably designed to ensure accuracy” or other methods in the bill. Upon determining a user is a minor, the same provider must link that account to their parent’s. Parental consent is required for a minor to download, install or make in-app purchases.

The bill looks to add requirements on developers too. Developers could only collect age range data once every six months, or if they reasonably suspect an account has been transferred to a minor. Developers would not be liable in a lawsuit for violations if they acted in good faith for age category data sharing and received parental consent.

Parents and minors who have been “harmed by violation” of the law could sue in civil court and win $1,000 for each violation or the greater of actual damages, litigation and attorney fees and other punitive damages.

Similar laws have been passed in Alabama, Texas and Utah, however all have been met with lawsuits over privacy and Constitutional questions.

Proponent testimony largely argued it keeps children in South Dakota safe. The bill was backed by the attorney general’s office, Call to Freedom, Family Voice Action, the South Dakota Catholics Conference, Family Policy Action and private citizens.

Hollie Strand identified herself as a private citizen but noted she’s also an employee for the Pennington County Sheriff’s assigned to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. She told the committee the state needs this sort of legislation, adding that this issue hasn’t been as prevalent in the past because children didn’t have phones. However, now they do.

“They’re falling traps for the same deceptive practices and dangerous practices. They’re allowed to install applications without asking about the risk. They’re agreeing to give away their personal pictures, their personal videos, their private messages—which may be used against them in college interviews or job interviews—and they’re sharing their location to every predator out there without understanding that it’s giving their fine, specific location,” Strand said. “They’re also downloading applications which give permission for their microphone and camera—which could secretly record them, unknowing that they’re giving that permission.”

Strand argued some apps, like Kik, Discord and Snapchat, are often used by offenders to exploit children and reduce the chances of getting caught.

“What we know is kids should not be in this position to look at the permissions and determine whether they’re safe and whether they’re willing to give all that data away,” Strand said.

Opponents argued that protecting kids is essential, but the bill at hand doesn’t achieve that.

Doug Abraham is a registered lobbyist for the for the App Association and Motion Picture Association. He claimed the bill would require every adult to provide their real ID to “big tech” companies to fulfill the verification. Proponents offered that verification could be done through credit cards found in a digital phone wallet, since children can’t possess a credit card, as well as other means like birthdate and other data phones already have.

Abraham also said what the bill intends to do already exists through Apple and Google.

“This is legislating parenting at its worst, frankly,” Abraham said. “[This bill] doesn’t really protect kids. Parents have to protect kids. We have given and tech companies have given tools to parents to protect kids, but you have to avail yourself of it. Even if this bill passes, if parents aren’t going to actively parent, kids are going to get jailbreak phones. They’re going to be able to access all the harmful content anyways. We need to be more parent-centric and use the tools we already have.”

He pointed out parental controls on Apple and Google that allow a parent to be notified every time a child downloads an app or attempts to make a purchase. Abraham made the argument that “age-gating” shouldn’t be done the way it is in HB 1275, by giving an analogy.

“If you had a liquor store in a mall, and you’re trying to prevent kids from going to the liquor store, this bill requires everybody who enters the mall to get carded,” Abraham said. “We think it’s a better idea to go ahead and card those people that are going into the liquor store, and that’s not what this bill does.”

Opponents also warned that should HB 1275 become law, a legal challenge in court would probably follow suit over privacy and Constitutional concerns.

However, opponent arguments did not prevail. After passing committee, the bill heads to the House floor.